Bruno Guimarães

[thebrokendoll 10156]

7 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

 

not sure what rtg stands for so probably not.  think i read it on twitter and/or bluemoon so not necessarily a strong source.

 

he would be a good alongside Rodri and could replace him sometimes too. good energy and grit. my understanding is that he could play either 6 or 8 depending. Gundogan mark 2?

 

not sure of his goals and assists output. i'll bother to look if there turns out to be any legs to it.

 

 

rtg is the sunderland messageboard mate.

my post to you was a sort of private hoke, very probably only funny to me.   

 

mind you..... £80m is laughable.

[Gemmill 49357]

I would definitely give this place a wide berth for a week or two if Bruno signs for your lot.

 

As I've said before though, if one of the two best teams in the world comes knocking for him, he'd he crazy not to go, and we're just gonna have to come to terms with that uncomfortable fact. 

 

Hope Gloom is right about the clause being for non-domestic clubs only, but I think we'd have a problem with Bruno if we put a £150m price tag on him domestically when there's a £100m one in his contract. I think he'd go for much closer to £100m domestically too. 

[Gemmill 49357]

I might give this place a wide berth myself for a couple of weeks if Bruno goes in the summer. 

 

Gonna be a lot of this going on. 

 

[wykikitoon 22563]

If we (and I don't think we will) let him go for £80m we are fucking mental.  I think if he goes it will be c£120m

[Dr Gloom 23396]

20 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

 

not sure what rtg stands for so probably not.  think i read it on twitter and/or bluemoon so not necessarily a strong source.

 

he would be a good alongside Rodri and could replace him sometimes too. good energy and grit. my understanding is that he could play either 6 or 8 depending. Gundogan mark 2?

 

not sure of his goals and assists output. i'll bother to look if there turns out to be any legs to it.

 

 

he could play both roles with aplomb, particularly in your midfield alongside world class players.

 

he played "number 8" in his first half season after signing in the january window and scored a bunch of goals. they have dried up since then as he's played the deeper role since. but the numbers don't tell the whole story. everything goes through him. he is head and shoulders our best player, picking up the ball from the centre backs, always looking to receive it and dictating play from deep. 

 

he'd be a massive loss for us. we should be able to build our team around him and we have the money to do so. it's only the bullshit psr nonsense stopping us, which which is why we would be crying out for an astronomical transfer fee. 

Edited May 1, 2024 by Dr Gloom

[Dr Gloom 23396]

9 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

I might give this place a wide berth myself for a couple of weeks if Bruno goes in the summer. 

 

Gonna be a lot of this going on. 

 

 

it'll be devastating. 

 

we should be building a team around him, just as man city were able to do with david silva and yaya toure. 

 

we shouldn't be forced to sell him because of some bullshit rules - arbitrary lines in sand drawn to protect the established clubs who were able to spend their own money with impunity, build their squads and grow their brands without having to contend with these bullshit rules

 

it's the most newcastley thing ever that when it finally is our turn, all this shit is put in place to stop us. 

[Gemmill 49357]

If Man City or Real Madrid come in for him, it won't be PSR that's causing him to leave. It'll be the immediacy of success that those teams can offer vs the promise of it here. 

 

Totally agree PSR is absolute bullshit though. Whether you believe it's been set up to protect the elite doesn't really matter, what matters is that that's how it's now working. Preventing perfectly sustainable clubs from progressing. 

 

The idea that a constantly changing group of 20 clubs gets to decide how it all works is fucking mental too. 

[LondonBlue 1019]

at this point i wish there was an independent regulator to say "no lads, this psr is barmy, and we the government aren't having it"

[wykikitoon 22563]

2 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

at this point i wish there was an independent regulator to say "no lads, this psr is barmy, and we the government aren't having it"

 

It wouldnt be allowed in normal business life.  It's fucking corrupt.

[Dr Gloom 23396]

30 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

 

It wouldnt be allowed in normal business life.  It's fucking corrupt.

 

it's anticompetitive, protectionist bullshit. the whole thing stinks and you're right it wouldn't be tolerated elsewhere. 

[Gemmill 49357]

You've got teams at the top who don't want the teams below catching up with them, and teams towards the bottom who don't want the teams above getting away from them. It should be self evident that you can't allow the league to self govern. 

[RobinRobin 12342]

2 hours ago, LondonBlue said:

 

and an instant ban for me no doubt. or maybe a suspension

We'll just shit @MrRaspberryJam on you. 👍 

[LondonBlue 1019]

1 hour ago, wykikitoon said:

 

It wouldnt be allowed in normal business life.  It's fucking corrupt.

 

we've been saying this for over 10 years. it's only now that clubs other than city are being affected that people are saying its wrong. 

 

 

[Dr Gloom 23396]

52 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

 

we've been saying this for over 10 years. it's only now that clubs other than city are being affected that people are saying its wrong. 

 

 

 

it hasn't really hindered man city though, has it? you were able to spend your oil millions before the proper punishments came in snd are now closing in on a fourth successive title.

 

we have the richest owners in the world but they are being denied the chance to grow their club the same way that man city and chelsea owners were able to because of the bullshit psr rules. 

[Holden McGroin 7458]

Aye Man City were allowed to spend their milllions/billions. Now they've climbed to the summit they have everything in place to carry on and be untouched by the rest.

Edited May 1, 2024 by Holden McGroin

[LondonBlue 1019]

1 hour ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

it hasn't really hindered man city though, has it? you were able to spend your oil millions before the proper punishments came in snd are now closing in on a fourth successive title.

 

we have the richest owners in the world but they are being denied the chance to grow their club the same way that man city and chelsea owners were able to because of the bullshit psr rules. 

 

 

i think there's a point where wealth becomes irrelevant as there is only so much that you can spend on players.  for example no one is going to spend 2.5 billion which i think is a 25 man squad of 100 million players. Except maybe Chelsea.

 

Just as you are a magnitude richer than us, so we are a magnitude richer than Chelsea. Yet they routinely outbid us for players.

 

Recruitment is simple for us. We have a price. It's either accepted or it isn't. If not we move on. Declan Rice wanted to hear what Arsenal were offering so we didn't raise our bid as he didn't want us enough. Its a recurring story.

 

We are lucky as we raced to get over that drawbridge just as the cartel were pulling it up. Remains to be seen if we did it legally.

 

On that point (according to the itk crowd) City know the outcome is favourable and are preparing their response. 

City are known to have been in contact with lawyers regarding libel in the media and again supposedly warnings have been sent to various entities.

It's interesting that City continue to invest heavily. Building work on the stadium & hotel are well under way. Odd behavior for someone guilty. 

 

 

 

[LondonBlue 1019]

1 hour ago, Holden McGroin said:

Aye Man City were allowed to spend their milllions/billions. Now they've climbed to the summit they have everything in place to carry on and be untouched by the rest.

 

under psr rules spending was linked to revenue. now that city have broken revenue records they're linking spend to something we can't affect. same old cartel, always cheating.

Edited May 1, 2024 by LondonBlue

[PaddockLad 18836]

24 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

 

under psr rules spending was linked to revenue. now that city have broken revenue records they're linking spend to something we can't affect. same old cartel, always cheating.

I was looking at that the other day. City £800+ mill  in commercial revenue last year. Where are they getting it from and how does it pass the fair market value thing?… 

[Gemmill 49357]

The FMV stuff was very conveniently not backwards applicable.

 

Only for new arrangements.

[Dr Gloom 23396]

didn't etihad give them £500m for a stadium naming rights or something? which was more than five times what arsenal got from emirates - if i remember correctly wenger kicked up a fuss at the time because he could see where things were going - arsenal can't compete with that. 

 

we are being denied the same opportunity. aramco could sponsor st james for 3bn tomorrow but there is no way the greedy six are going to let another chelsea or man city join the club. 

 

it'll be interesting to see whether man city are able to negotiate another massive namig rights deal under new FMV rules, as the first deal with etihad clearly blew FMW under water.

 

it's probably why they haven't done a naing rights deal on st james' yet. they're waiting for this shite to blow over before trying to get the most they can without the greedy shites stopping us. 

[LondonBlue 1019]

16 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:

I was looking at that the other day. City £800+ mill  in commercial revenue last year. Where are they getting it from and how does it pass the fair market value thing?… 

 

i think it's £712 million rather than 800. the question i would ask, is how does it fail ?

 

all our annual reports going back 10 years are on the city website here https://www.mancity.com/club/annual-reports

 

but you probably want to see page 33 of this pdf https://www.mancity.com/annualreport2023/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/manchester-city_financial-report_2022-23.pdf

 

[LondonBlue 1019]

4 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

didn't etihad give them £500m for a stadium naming rights or something? which was more than five times what arsenal got from emirates - if i remember correctly wenger kicked up a fuss at the time because he could see where things were going - arsenal can't compete with that. 

 

we are being denied the same opportunity. aramco could sponsor st james for 3bn tomorrow but there is no way the greedy six are going to let another chelsea or man city join the club. 

 

it'll be interesting to see whether man city are able to negotiate another massive namig rights deal under new FMV rules, as the first deal with etihad clearly blew FMW under water.

 

it's probably why they haven't done a naing rights deal on st james' yet. they're waiting for this shite to blow over before trying to get the most they can without the greedy shites stopping us. 

 

if you take etihad out of the equation, our revenue is still greater than Man U.  let that sink in a moment 🙂

 

etihad stadium naming rights is significant but at £15m a year it hardly explains the £712m.  Etihad also sponsor our shirt and other stuff. . source

 

guess the answer for city is to keep extending the existing naming rights deal.

 

 

[Dr Gloom 23396]

3 minutes ago, LondonBlue said:

 

if you take etihad out of the equation, our revenue is still greater than Man U.  let that sink in a moment 🙂

 

etihad stadium naming rights is significant but at £15m a year it hardly explains the £712m.  Etihad also sponsor our shirt and other stuff. . source

 

guess the answer for city is to keep extending the existing naming rights deal.

 

 

 

you tell me - i'm no expert on man city. if it isn't the etihad deal, which other abu dabhi-affiliated companies have paid over "fair market value" because lets face it - that's how you increased your revenue isn't it? you can't just pump the sheikh's money in so it's funnelled in via "commercial revenue". it's not like man city are suddenly selling more replica shirts than man u is it? i'm sure PIF would like to do the same via affiliated saudi companies but we are not being allowed to repeat the man city model

[ewerk 32871]

9 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

 

you tell me - i'm no expert on man city. if it isn't the etihad deal, which other abu dabhi-affiliated companies have paid over "fair market value" because lets face it - that's how you increased your revenue isn't it? you can't just pump the sheikh's money in so it's funnelled in via "commercial revenue". it's not like man city are suddenly selling more replica shirts than man u is it? i'm sure PIF would like to do the same via affiliated saudi companies but we are not being allowed to repeat the man city model

 

https://theathletic.com/3120837/2022/02/17/special-report-manchester-citys-sponsors-the-links-to-abu-dhabi-and-what-it-means-for-newcastle-united/

[Dr Gloom 23396]

1 hour ago, ewerk said:

 

https://theathletic.com/3120837/2022/02/17/special-report-manchester-citys-sponsors-the-links-to-abu-dhabi-and-what-it-means-for-newcastle-united/

 

right, so pretty much as i suspected. 

 

so the question must be, will they be allowed to keep their commercial revenue artificially inflated in a world of "FMV" and if so, will the saudis be allowed to join the party? 

 

i suspect the reason we haven't done a big stadium sponsorship or training ground deal yet (low-hanging fruit) is they're waiting to see how this plays out before trying to do a deal that will maximise revenue for us while not falling foul of the bullshit rules designed to stop us. 

Edited May 1, 2024 by Dr Gloom